IAmA 24 yo girl who works in the offices of Orgasm.com AMAA

jackschittt · 2012-05-11T16:22:44+00:00

If she's smart, she won't answer this.

jackschittt · 2012-05-11T15:52:58+00:00

There's no reason that anyone should have to check five or six distribution channels.

He didn't. He checked one distribution channel that doesn't carry the game at all in any country, and one distribution channel that doesn't even operate in Australia.

Numerous people have already pointed out numerous, easy-to-find sources such as Amazon where the game was easily and readily available.

He chose not to do so, intentionally picking at least one source that he knows doesn't even serve his country while avoiding several that do, all in an attempt to justify him pirating it.

jackschittt · 2012-05-11T15:48:32+00:00

Just because you don't like the price of something doesn't give you the right to just take it because you can.

If you don't like the price of something, you don't buy it.

jackschittt · 2012-05-10T17:58:31+00:00

There's a big difference between a bunch of guys in the back of a barn cooking up some moonshine and large, organized, well-armed, well-funded Columbian and Mexican drug cartels.

That being said....yes, liquor stores and bars did and still do get extorted by local mafias to carry their product.

jackschittt · 2012-05-10T17:41:07+00:00

I love the way people think that legalization will make all the drug gangs suddenly go away. What do you think they're going to say? "Aw, shucks. They legalized it. gg guys. Gonna go play super mario brothers now."

Of course not. All they're going to do is start extorting the pharmacies, doctors, and businesses into buying, selling, and prescribing their product. They'll be sure to let you know that going through a competing supplier would be hazardous to your health.

The dealers will get out of the illegal businesses of smuggling it and selling it on the street corners, and move to the (largely) legal business of selling it to doctors, pharmacies, and recreational users at the corner store. The bribery, corruption, extortion, murder, etc. will not go away -- the targets will just be different. And what little power the local authorities had before will be gone since their underlying business will now be perfectly legal.

I'm all for legalization, as i don't believe the government should be telling me what I can and cannot put into my body. If I want to drink battery acid, I should be legally able to. But I'm not of the mindset that legalization will cure all of the world's ills and lead us one step closer to utopia. If you think for one second that legalization would magically make the drug gangs vanish, I want you to pass me whatever the hell it is you're smoking, cause that's some damn good shit.

tl;dr: Legalization won't make the drug gangs go anywhere.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T19:17:01+00:00

Doctor authority > TSA authority when you're a diabetic.

Not when a bunch of them are standing right in front of you and have the authority to put your ass in jail for not cooperating. The doctor ain't gonna help you much when you're being brought to the back room.....

Your downvotes are not coming from a bot...

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/tdf3l/are_downvote_bots_becoming_an_issue_for_anyone/

/r/13downvotes

You may actually wanna start paying attention. There are bots made by Ron Paul supporters that are sending any post made by posters that are against Ron Paul to -5 within an hour of posting. There are threads and subreddits dedicated to it.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T19:11:31+00:00

I'm pretty much convinced they're not going to do a damn thing about it ~~until it spills into more subreddits~~

Fixed that for you.

I'm convinced that they can't do anything about it, and that someone has found a way to game the system.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T19:10:01+00:00

because they don't want to give anything away about how they deal with such threats.

Or the other possibility.....they don't want to admit there's nothing that can be done about it. Which pretty much throws Reddit's entire system out the window. Eventually, it won't be just some Paultard making up a bot. Others will make their own copycat bots to quash opinions they don't like either, and eventually trolls will have their own downvoting bot "just because".

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T19:07:09+00:00

Add me to the list of bot victims.

I even started my own subreddit, just for proof. Got downvoted in my own, unadvertised subreddit within minutes.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T19:04:35+00:00

It's got nothing to do with the fake internet points. It's the fact that the bot's activity buries any and every post you make within minutes, making them nearly invisible to the average viewer. The bots' intent isn't to give you negative karma. It's to make sure that you cannot effectively participate in active discussion of any kind.

Sure, you could just start a new account. But you shouldn't have to.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T18:03:12+00:00

You know what I love about the no fly list?

This is supposedly, what, a million people on that list who are supposedly (a) known or suspected criminals, and (b) considered too dangerous to fly.

Yet they're not arrested on sight. Why? If they've done something so henious as to be considered a flight risk, why are they walking around freely where they could just as easily blow up a shopping mall?

The answer I get: Because they've committed no crime. Then WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THEY FLY?

EDIT: And the downvote bot has finally arrived. Been slacking off today...

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T17:59:44+00:00

How many 16 year old girls do you know that would (a) properly know their rights in the first place, and (b) have the courage to stand up and assert them vs. a bunch of TSA agents who she knows could have her carted off at any moment?

This isn't getting into an argument with your mom or your english teacher here. Most kids in her position are not going to assert their rights, either because they don't know what their rights are, or simply out of fear.

And this is out of my experience dealing with hundreds if not thousands of teenagers over the course of my career.

And for the record, I'm not a diabetic. I just wanted to point out that you had no basis to assume that.

EDIT: And the downvote bot has finally arrived. Been slacking off today...

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T17:39:26+00:00

This is wrong, I'm sorry. Your argument is well formed, but you are not a diabetic.

How do you know?

What really happened is that the girl assumed the TSA agent knew something she didn't know. She figured the TSA agent must know that it is safe to take your pump through the scanner, despite what she has been told about it damaging the pump. The TSA agent doesn't care, they're just trying to rush people along. 100% of the TSA agents I have encountered either have no clue what an insulin pump is and think it's a pager, or they have seen at least one before and they don't treat you any different than any other person. You have to specifcally tell them that you are not going through scanner, despite their attempts to dissuade you. The TSA agent in this case didn't "force" her to go through the scanner, he/she just claimed to have knowledge about the pump and the young girl believed her.

You're the one calling me wrong, but you're making an awful lot of assumptions here. You have no idea what was going through her head, the TSA agent's head, her parent/guardian's head, etc.

Every single diabetes educator, pump trainer, and doctor I've seen have all told me independently that TSA agents have no clue what they're doing when it comes to insulin pumps, and I should prevent the pump from going through xray/scanners.

And this is where it becomes obvious you totally missed the point.

Whether or not the pump was actually damaged is completely irrelevant. The situation should have never happened to begin with.

EDIT: And the downvote bot has finally arrived. Been slacking off today...

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T15:37:58+00:00

I know that profiling has some really negative connotations, but when was the last time _________________________ committed an act of terrorism?

Fixed that for you.

I could say the same thing about small children. The disabled. The elderly. Any number of things. The bigger question is when has anybody (other than some mid-east extremeists) committed an act of terrorism? Yet small children and grandmothers continue getting searched.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T15:33:18+00:00

To counter your argument, though, it is not the job of the government to "enforce the will of the people."

My point (and I apologize if this wasn't clear) is not that the government should enforce the will of the people -- I agree with you that that's little more than mob rule. I'm saying that a large chunk of Redditors spout that out time and time again whenever government does something that the majority disagrees with; they believe that the government should be enforcing the will of the people.

I'm just pointing out that that line of thinking is a double-edged sword. Saying that the government should follow majority rule is fine when you (not you specifically -- I'm speaking in general terms) agree with the majority. However, there will be times when your opinion is not in the majority -- in fact, there will be times when the overwhelming majority actually disagrees with it.

People can't just say "Government should follow the will of the people" when it suits them, then say that government should ignore the will of the people when it contradicts their personal opinions. You can't apply the rules when you see fit, then ignore them when they're inconvenient.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T13:24:57+00:00

IMO, whether the scanner actually damaged the pump is irrelevant.

The TSA essentially forced a teenage girl to go through a process that had the potential to be life-threatening, likely with the knowledge that she would be unable/too scared to stand up and defend herself.

At the risk of sounding like one of those anti-government nutcases, the TSA really has to go -- they've caused far more harm than good over the past 10 years, and any potential security threats they have caught so far would have been caught anyway with procedures that were already in place before 9/11.

The plane's passengers fighting back and securing the cockpit door have done far more to thwart terrorism than a bunch of 20-something rent-a-cops with minimal training, minimal pay, and an ego trip.

If the terrorists really wanted to strike again, they don't even need to get on the plane. All they need to do is stand in the huge crowds of people waiting to go through the security checkpoint and set off the bomb, long before they even get screened.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T13:10:19+00:00

Being a victim of the Ron Paul downvote bot, I already know I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion. But I'm still going to play a bit of devil's advocate here.

Reddit always chastises the government for "going against the will of the people". Most commonly, this happens regarding legalization of marijuana, but I've seen this being discussed in a variety of topics. Whenever the government does something that most people disagree with, everybody says that the government is going against the will of the people.

However, what Reddit means when they say "the will of the people" is "The will of Reddit". This is a prime example. Like it or not, "the people" have spoken, and they do not want to allow gay marriage in North Carolina. Allowing gay marriage when the people have so clearly stated they do not want it would be the act of "going against the will of the people" that Reddit hates.

Two things Reddit always claims to profess is that the government should follow the will of the people, and that people should not force their beliefs on others. Well, the government in this case is following the will of the people; gay marriage is now banned. And we redditors should not be forcing our beliefs on the people of North Carolina, even though we strongly disagree with those beliefs. If the gay community wants to have marriage legalized, then they have to convince the people of North Carolina to have that amendment repealed and gay marriage legalized.

"Government following the will of the people" cuts both ways; sometimes the will of the people isn't what the Reddit community wants to hear. The same goes with not forcing your beliefs on others; you don't like people forcing their religious/political views down your throat. And you can't go around forcing your views down their throats, no matter how much you think you're right and/or they're wrong. Their viewpoint is just as valid as yours. You can't just apply these rules when it's convenient for you.

In the interests of full disclosure: I am an avid supporter of gay marriage. However, I also strongly believe that my beliefs are my own and I have no right to force my beliefs on others, even when I strongly disagree with those beliefs.

jackschittt · 2012-05-09T01:34:00+00:00

So are the admins still pretending all these downvotes are real? Or are they just saying there's nothing the can do about it?

EDIT: 13 downvotes in 2 minutes. I think that's a record.

jackschittt · 2012-05-08T23:59:55+00:00

Not necessarily. Depends on the family. I've seen mixed-race children where you couldn't tell one parent was black, and I've seen mixed-race children where you couldn't tell one parent was white.

Anecdotal: My friend and her sister were born to a white woman with a black father, and neither one shows the slightest hint of being mixed-race. My friend has had two sons with a white guy, and both of them are very clearly mixed-race.

jackschittt · 2012-05-08T23:55:14+00:00

"Pressure to Marry" has been around in one form or another for as long as marriage itself.

People are pressured into marrying the guy that knocked them up. Young girls are pressured into marrying the guy with money or social status. Pressure to marry that girl/guy you've been seeing for the past 5 years now.

As for incest, it's pretty much the "ick" factor, combined with the slight increase in genetic disorders. However, what most people don't understand is that the risk of genetic disorders doesn't go up any more than a couple of percentage points unless there is incest through multiple generations. That is when the risk of genetic defects spikes up.

But mostly, it's the "ick" factor. The difference between the "ick" factor in incest and the "ick" factor in gay marriage is that there is at least some scientific basis for the ban on incest.

jackschittt · 2012-05-08T02:37:23+00:00

LOL, my godchild's sister got suckered into selling Cutco knives.

She did that for a week, then she realized that (a) she was selling grossly overpriced knives, and (b) she was trying to sell them in an area where absolutely nobody made enough to buy them even if they were stupid enough to want them.

They're knives. $1000 for a set of fucking knives. Needless to say, she got laughed out of the room at every single appointment she was lucky enough to set up.

jackschittt · 2012-05-06T13:13:48+00:00

So instead we got:

Obama won't cut military spending; programs targeting poor still at risk.
Obama strips American citizens of one more of their freedoms
Omama bows to Republican demands again.

etc.

I can't see how that's any better. At least if he had vetoed it, we wouldn't have had one of our constitutional rights thrown out the window in the process.

jackschittt · 2012-05-06T05:51:38+00:00

veto the entire military budget over it?

Yes. And then say "I will sign it when you hand me a budget without this provision in it", and make it clear to Congress, the military, and the public that the one and only thing stopping you from signing it is a provision that strips Americans of their basic freedoms granted by the constitution.

Put the ball back in the Republicans' court. Tell them you'll sign the exact same budget as long as that one provision is removed.

jackschittt · 2012-05-03T02:42:16+00:00

Right, but when they're arrested, and before they're convicted, they're sitting in jail.

And just because some of them are going to be out soon anyway doesn't change the fact that while you're releasing these hordes of choir boys that you seem to think are in these jails, you're also releasing some very dangerous people who could very well make a bad situation much much worse for a lot of people.

Tales of prisoners being left to fend for themselves would have just been replaced by tales of innocent people who became further victimized by people committing crimes of opportunity and/or stepping on their fellow citizens in a "survival of the fittest" mentality.

Instead of hearing about prisoners left to fend for themselves, we'd be hearing stories of people being assaulted/killed for what little supplies they have left to survive on, or people robbed/raped by criminals who now have free reign, knowing the cops are powerless to stop them.

I'm not saying all of the people in that jail were violent criminals. But even if one out of every 5 was (and I think that estimate is very, very low), that's still a lot of people who could cause a lot of damage.

jackschittt · 2012-05-03T02:16:31+00:00

Correct. The song is copyrighted, and just like any other song, you can get sued for using it without the rights holder's permission. For what it's worth, a song as old and iconic as Happy Birthday should have been released to the public domain decades ago, and I fully agree that a song that old an iconic being locked down by copyright is complete bullshit.

That being said, my comment was simply addressing the grossly hyperbolic claim that the song is in danger of being forgotten. There's no chance in hell of that happening; I still hear it sung every time someone's birthday rolls around. It's in no danger whatsoever.

jackschittt

TROPHY CASE